cross-client surface references

[Alexander Larsson]

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 13:38 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:37:06 +0200
> Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 02:19 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> > > My issue with this is that you're tying two things together. You 
> > > want
> > > access to """a surface""", and you think you can do this by 
> > > having
> > > global cross-client objects and handles and such. I don't see a 
> > > need
> > > for this. We can just add a new protocol that does what we want.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't understand your disagreement. The protocol you sketch out 
> > is
> > exactly the same as the one Jonas sketched, only with different 
> > names
> > (sandboxed_surface instead of xdg_foreign), and it is very much a
> > global cross-client object handle.
> > 
> > I obviously don't want the actual XdgSurface object from the other
> > client, that would be insane. I just want a reference/handle/name 
> > for
> > it in my client so that i can pass it as an argument to
> > my_xdg_surface.set_parent()
> 
> It makes a huge difference whether you call
> xdg_surface.set_parent(xdg_surface *foreign) or
> sandboxed_surface.set_as_child(xdg_surface *owned).
> 

So, you disagree with xdg_surface.set_parent accepting both xdg_surface
and xdg_foreign objects? One could add xdg_surface.set_foreign_parent()
then to make it explicit what is meant.